On 12/6/00 5:42 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well not about that but more due to legal thing. I would never touch
> something that has Suns license attached.
You must be referring to the javax.xml.* classes, right? Since it was a Sun
engineer that checked them in -- then it must be ok. At least until somebody
complains. In any case, a Sun employee said on the xml lists that it was
perfectly ok to have the code for javax.xml.* in the repository and to
redistribute it. After all, they are just public interface classes (or very
light abstract classes and exceptions if you want to be technical) of a
public spec. It's in the xml-general archives somewhere. Search for some guy
named Davidson.
A better, more "legal" solution would be to have just the jaxp.jar checked
in somewhere with a clear binary redistribution license. A perfect thing for
CJAN.
Yes, that Sun employee has on his to-do list a clarification that is more in
line with Open Source usage of this code...
> I thought Apache had a clean tree
> policy - ie only Apache copyright source is allowed to exist in CVS.
Apache only *works* on Apache copyright code. Our experience with code that
we have to lean on is that we do what we can how we can. The other
alternative is for somebody that doesn't work for Sun to redo the classes.
If you want to, go ahead, but it's really unclear as to whether it matters
since, according to the spec license -- there are *no* provisions (either
restrictions or grants) given to any other party except clean room
implementations - and since the place has got lots of Sun folks around, it
would be hard to claim clean-room. :)
Yes -- that Sun employee is also working to get grants clarified as it *is*
clear what Sun's intent is here... And that intent is for people to use the
silly classes, but not change the public APIs which are fixed by a
specification.
.duncan
--
James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!try; do()
